Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
and the taliban. what on earth are we doing over there? why do we care about the hearts or minds or building the schools? i mean, outside of osama bin laden going to afghanistan and tricking the taliban into this spectacular attack on america, in general the muslims in afghanistan like the ones in indonesiaia have not exported terrorism. that's been the specialty of other countries. they really just want to be left alone so why don't we just leave them alone, as long as they're not plotting an attack on us, what is the point? >> michelle flournoy just laid out calmly four or five great ways to reduce the pentagon budget, including getting out of afghanistan, taking the civilian population in the d.o.d. down because we're leaving afghanistan. i thought it was pretty good, ann. somebody ought to listen to her. >> yes, i agree. i'm glad you brought up with her the base closings. this is why you seed something like a closure. the american people are of two find minds. they think government should be smaller, thinks government wants too. but the second you name a specific program that's going to
is aced on numbers. do you have a correct report? is this leading to a reductiothg in handling the taliban. [no audio >> this was a regrettable error. we are making adjustments. in spite of the adjustments, our assessment of the progress and is continuing.anistan we have pushed the taliban out of the population centers and they have failed to retake the areas they lost. this is true. our and the lead and have provided security for 87% of the country's population. there is a tendency to fixate on one metrics. the complete picture of progress in afghanistan is more nuanced. i would encourage you to look at the overall picture. we are looking to fix this error. we will report further information as we have it from kabul. >> does the report need to be fixed? >> we will take a look at adjustments that need to be made. >> does it call into question the statistics? forces are in the lead increasingly. they are entering the numbers. many people have acknowledged the problem. do you have to do it closer review of the statistics that have been cited repeatedly? >> i do not know that we have to under
in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom commander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that there won't get drawdown and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the pakistan border. the government o
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the program from 30,000 down to 45,000. the next commander will also play an important role in shaping our partnership with afghanistan after 2014. a partnership that i fully support. i am concerned however by plans to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. of retreated 52,000 to two injured 30,000 by 2017. i believe any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and as afghan security forces' progress in providing for their country's security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by citing as we withdraw our forces that there won't be a drawdown in afghanistan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile, significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remains. among the greatest threat to the stability is the safe havens for the afghan insurgents across the pakistan border which the government
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
. it was the men who served under him when he led them to take the camp back when it was overran by the taliban. he's somebody who is very aware of things that did not go the way of the americans that way. he blames himself still for troops that were lost that day, even though there's nothing that he could have done to save them, they are still very, very tough on him receives when it comes to the eight men that were killed that day. >> he is a real, real hero and he will be honored. i want to alert our viewers, jake has a special tonight. jake tapper reports "an american hero" it airs at 10:00 p.m. eastern only here on cnn. >>> john brennans wasn't the only administration official taking heat up on capitol hill today. up next, the reason the outgoing defense secretary leon panetta is giving for why the u.s. military could not save lives in benghazi. get ready for a lot more of that new-plane smell. we're building the youngest, most modern fleet among the largest us airlines to ensure that you are more comfortable and connected than ever. we are becoming a new american. to find you a great deal, ev
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)